APPEALS HEARD

Dominion, Volume 36, Issue 23, 22 October 1942, Page 8

APPEALS HEARD

Manpower Direction Orders

CASES OF EMPLOYEES

Appeals against decisions of the M ellington district manpower officer relusing workers permission to terminate their present employment, or directing them to other employment, were heard yesterday |jy the Manpower Industrial Committee, consisting of Messrs. J. J. Scott (deputy-chairman), B. L. Hammond and J. Arthurs. . Mrs. Alice J. Ensor appealed against the decision of the manpower officer, in refusing her permission to terminate her employment as an tiffice assistant at Base Records. Appellant, who said that, she drew a salary of £6/18/8 a fortnight, said tliis was insufficient to maintain herself and her 7}-year-old daughter, whom she had to board out, and she wished to leave in order to seek more remunerative employment.. She had found it too expensive to live in flats. It was stated that though Base Records now had a staff of over 500, this was still 50 to 60 short of requirements, lhe appeal was disallowed. Isabel Brizzle, an employee with the stores branch of tbe Post and Telegraph Department in -Wellington, a against the manpower officer’s refusal or permission to terminate his employment. Appellant stated .that she lived at Trentham, and wished to take up a position in the' ordnance store there, as it would save fares and time travelling to the city, and she could live with her married brother. For the. department it was stated that.it wished to retain employees in the service for which they hnd been trained. The appeal was disallowed. ' • . < : - . Mrs. Macßae appealed against a decision by the manpower officer refusing her permission to terminate her employment as a pantrymaid in the employment of James Smith, Ltd. Appellant said her son had returned from overseas and had been discharged from the Army. She wished to keep house for him and her husband, and had accepted the employment, which was merely part-time, on.y while her son was away. Tbs appeal was upheld. Appeal by Employer. Win. Brunsdon and Co. (Mr. L. H. James) appealed against a decision which had directed Mrs. B. Bring' to employment with the Wellington Slipper Co. (Mr. P. Hammond;, with whom she had taken up work as a machinist. Mr. James said that Mrs. Bring, who wasaged 22, had been 'with Brunsuon and Co. for nine years, and -was the key machinist in the factory. . Her services were very definitely required by that firm, and her transfer to the Wellington Slipper Co. was a loss to the firm. She was fully qualified for all tvork and received £3/5/6 gross weekly. Brunsdon and Co. were now sub-contractors for a military output, Though their factory had not been declared an essential undertaking. • -Mr. F. H. Waters (district manpower officer) said that the Wellington Slipper Co. had a military contract for 2000 pairs of sandals weekly, but due to labour shortage had only been able to produce 800. They had now received instructions to cease all' civilian work entirely till military requirements were met. The position regarding female labour for the footwear industry was very serious, and it was intended to direct all suitable girls of the 24-30 age group to this work. Mrs. Bring had said that if she was to be transferred to an essential undertaking, she would rather go to Wellington Slippers, where her husband worked. Opposing the transfer, Mr. Hammond said Mrs. Bring could be employed on making military "uppers” with Bruns<lon and Co. The appeal was allowed, conditional on Mrs; Bring being engaged on fulltime military work when she returned to her former employers. - , . Commenting that the committee did not feel disposed to hear a case so trivial. Mr. Scott said it would uphold an appeal by Eric Alfred White, aged 15, against a decision refusing him permission to terminate his employment with the ■Wholesale Furniture Co., Ltd. A Parliament Buildings Job.

Allan L. Cannons appealed against a decision directing him to employment with C. S. Luney, Ltd.,-as a carpenter. Appellant said he had been transferred from the employer with whom he Had formerly associated, and whom he knew ■ well, while engaged on a No. 1 priority job. . Mr. Luney said that after he had made numerous appeals for labour he had been allotted Cannon's for p. Parliamentary Buildings job, which was classed first priority and urgent. Hardly a thing had been done so far on the job without being altered by somebody, with the result that progress was far from satisfactory. Cannons was a first-class tradesman and without his services the position would be aggravated. It was stated that there was a shortage of hundreds of carpenters in Wellington at present, and five semi-skilled men had had to be directed to the Parliament Buildings job. Decision was held over.

An appeal was made by W. H. Cardno against a decision refusing him permission to terminate his employment as an assistant linesman with the electricity department of the Wellington City Council. Appellant said that ihis present wage of £5/10/- weekly net was insufficient to maintain his wife and four children and he had applied for membership of the Walersiders’ Union, in order to earn more. Though he had been passed fit for the council’s service years ago, he had recently been graded 3C in an Army medical examination. The manager of the department, Mr. L. B. Hutton, said that in 1939 its staff was 63 Now it was only 24' and could not keep up with the work. Decision was held over.

An appeal was made by G. N. Whiteside against a decision refusing him permission to terminate his employment as a lorry driver with the Wellington City Council milk department. Appellant said he could not manage to meet all his commitments on. his present wages of £6/15/- clear of tax, and wished to obtain employment in freezing works. He was at present engaged in night driving, which was affecting his eyes. It was stated on behalf of the milk department that difficulty was experienced in obtaining experienced drivers. Appellant received a quart of milk a day, in lieu of tokens which could be cashed for 4/1 weekly, in addition to his wages, which thus amounted to £S/7/- gross. Decision was- held over. ‘ Mrs. Florence G. Bunting appealed against a decision refusing her permission to terminate her employment as a worker in the employ of R. Hannah and Co., Ltd. Appellant's husband said a doctor's certificate had been obtained that the class ot work in which she was engaged was detrimental to her health. She did not object to suitable outside ’'it was stated on behalf of Hannah and Co. that appellant was a skilled operative whom they could 'ill-afiord to lose. The firm did not know wliieh way to turn for labour. The appeal was held over.